Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1887-11-15
THE VIRGINIA CASE.
The Argument Closed Before the Su.
Preme Court TODAY.

Mr.. TUCKER CONFIDENT THAT THE STATE OFFICIALS
WILL BE RRLRAsEp-NR. coNxIiSGs ARGUMENT
CRITICIZED by vIRoINrASs.
In the United States supreme Court to-day the
Virginia habeas corpus case was resumed, Mr..
Tucker for the petitioners and the State having
the floor. Ex-Gov. Chamberlain, for the bond.
holders obtained permission 70 read the decree In
case which he cited yesterday, and in regard to
which he was questioned by Justice Gray. Mr..
Tucker, resuming his argument, maintained that
the act OF the Virginia legislature OF 1887
was not, as had been claimed by the
other side, defiance or the de-
cisions Of the Supreme Court, but that in fact 1t
was made 10 conform with these decisions. He
held mat IN such litigation instead OF steering as
close 10 violation OF State sovereignty as posi-
pie without conflicting with It. the true policy was
TO keep as lar away possible from such collision.
Mi. Tucker defined the difference between an
infringement OF the rights OF the citizen by State
lily, could be held responsible, and the authorita-
tive act u the officer In his capacity as repre-
sentative OF the state. He maintained that In
the case under consideration the officials were
RRPREsENTING THE STATE,
and that the proceedings against them were, in
fact proceedings against the State; that this was
a proceeding against the sovereign State OF Vir-
ginia, and not against certain OF her officials. He
SAID that God only knows what may be the con-
structiOn OF the law; that The time may have
come when these .'peddlers in coupons'-tne for.
elgn bOndnolders-may be able to enjon the state
and tie her hands In very ear nest language be
declared that the present proceedings were with
out law, without Jurisdiction, anu without power,
and SAID that II anything ne mad uttered could
serve 10 prevent the Invasion OF the recognized
rights OF the States he would thank God for the
utterance.
The case was taken under consideration, and the
next on the docket called.
Nh. TUCKER CONFIDENT.
After the argument closed and the case was
submitted, STAR reporter asked ex-Congressman
Tucker what he thought OF the prospects. He
said he felt confident that the State Officers now
held under arrest for contempt vi court would
be released, and that the decision would sustain
his side OF the case.
Mr.. Combines ARGUMENT.
The argument or ex-senator COnkling was de.
cided disappointment to the Virginia people. He
was paid large ieeIt is said Sic, 00O-for his APP
pearance In regard to Mr. CunkIlngs argument
there seems to be no difference OF Vpinion or Of
expression, at least, among those who have taken
so much interest In behalf OF the Virginia Officials
who have been committed Tor contempt. IL seems
10 have been expected that Mr.. Conhiing would
make one OF MS greatest efforts; mat ht
would put himself on record, before the
court, as maintaining that the sovereignty
OF a state could not Or should not be Invaded. In
stead OF that Mr.. COnkling delivered very mild
and nOn-committal speech. He did not lay down
quoted MS clients In making his strongest points
it Is SAID, MI. Conkling would say my clients
affirm" this and so or 1.-The petition alleges,
So and SO. There Is no conceaiment OF the
disappointment at the eX senator's argu
ment, and some say that he was not willing
" put hinoeli On record In favor VI anything nkt
arise against him hereafter; that he Is not uont
with political ambition, and he was not Wiling u
say anything mat might hurt MIN In aspiration:
for future political honorS.
During the proceedings to-day Mr.. Conkling Oc
cupled seat OF 70 one side OF the bar, apparently
taking but little interest IN the proceedings